Appeals Court Voids Minnesota's Limits On Minors' Abortion

By KENNETH B. NOBLE, Special to the New York Times

Published: August 28, 1987

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27—
A Federal appeals court today struck down a Minnesota law that required women under 18 years old either to notify both parents or to obtain judicial approval before getting abortions.

Without disputing that teen-agers could benefit from parental guidance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said requiring such guidance ''may do more to fractionize the family integrity than preserve it, and may be adverse to the best interests of the pregnant minor.''

The ruling is significant because the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments this fall on an Illinois law somewhat similar to Minnesota's.

If the Minnesota ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, as expected, both cases could become the first major abortion issue facing Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.'s successor in the next court term. President Reagan's nominee to succeed the retiring Justice is Judge Robert H. Bork of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who has criticized Supreme Court decisions in favor of abortion rights.

The decision today also has implications for laws in 22 states that seek to encourage minors to tell their parents or obtain their consent before having abortions. About half those laws are not now being enforced because of court orders.

Similar proposals are or soon will be pending before many other state legislatures, including New York's. New York, like New Jersey and Connecticut, now has no requirement of parental notification.

The 1981 Minnesota law requires women under 18 to tell both parents of their plans 48 hours before having an abortion or to ask a state judge to waive that requirement. Last November it was held unconstitutional by Federal District Judge Donald Alsop of St. Paul. That was the first examination by any court of how a law requiring parental notification, which has been encouraged by several Supreme Court rulings, has worked in practice. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling

A three-judge panel of the appeals court unanimously affirmed Judge Alsop's ruling and came down squarely on the side of those who argue that the law has burdened minors seeking abortions without serving its goal of providing those who were immature with parental support and guidance. It was welcomed by abortion advocates and civil libertarians and denounced by anti-abortion groups.

Judge Max Rosenn, who wrote the decision, cited testimony by abortion providers, counselors and psychiatrists in the District Court trial. He said they ''agreed that although family relationships benefit from voluntary and open communication, compelling parental notice has an opposite effect: it is almost always disastrous.''

Judge Rosenn was joined in the opinion by Judge Donald P. Lay; Judge Gerald W. Heaney concurred in a separate one-paragraph opinion.

In striking down the law, the court said minors as well as adults had a constitutional right to choose an abortion. It said that while states could encourage parental involvement in a minor's decision on having an abortion, the state's right to regulate such a decision ''is not absolute.'' Criticism and Notice of Appeal

The State of Minnesota served notice that it would appeal. Nancy Coster, vice president of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, an anti-abortion group that drafted the law, said the decision ''shows to what ridiculous lengths the courts are willing to take the abortion liberty.''

''The court,'' she added, ''is saying a 12- or 13-year-old girl can walk into an abortion clinic where the people have a financial interest in her getting an abortion, and the court is presuming that those people know what is best for her better than her own parents do.''

Lynn Paltrow, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing abortion providers, minors and others who sued to strike down the law, said the case ''is a major victory because the decision recognizes that parental notification laws in fact hurt minors and do nothing to foster intrafamily communication.''

She added, ''Although the decision narrowly focused on the devastating impact on teens and families of two-parent notification laws, the case will put before the Supreme Court the unrefuted record of the catastrophic harm caused by parental consent.'' Trauma in Court Is Cited

The Supreme Court has held unconstitutional laws that gave parents an absolute veto over their daughters' decisions. It has said a prompt and confidential judicial procedure to ''bypass'' parents must be available both for minors deemed mature enough to make their own decisions and for immature minors whose best interests would be served by having abortions without parental consent.

But in upholding state requirements that minors submit to such a court procedure, the majority has reasoned that ''immature'' minors could benefit from governmental encouragement to consult their parents.

The appeals court, however, said the evidence indicated that the Minnesota law did not in practice spur many teen-agers to consult their parents. Moreover, it said, requiring teen-agers to go to court at all may inflict needless trauma at a time of great emotional stress, especially since ''the system frequently requires the pregnant minor to make two or three trips of often great distances, which may in part be because by the time the court proceeding is over, it is too late in the day to still have the abortion.''

The judges continued, ''Although a notice requirement does not, as in a consent statute, enable a parent to exercise an absolute and unilateral veto regardless of the best interests of the minor, it does add to the minor's burdens at a time when she is confronted with a major personal decision of 'grave and indelible consequences.' '' Telling One Parent Insufficient

The law's requirements would not be met, for instance, if a minor notified one parent, even if the other parent was no longer part of the household. That minor would still need a court waiver to proceed with the abortion, the appeals court noted.

Nonetheless, the appeals court said, it is relatively easy to persuade a judge to waive the requirement for parental notificaiton.

''Judges have almost never denied a minor a requested abortion,'' the court said. In fact, Minnesota judges approved more than 3,500 requests for abortions from 1981 to 1986, while turning down only 9 requests - one-quarter of 1 percent.